Bill to raise legislative per diem introduced

PIERRE — What is $65 multiplied by 38? That’s how much more Rep. David Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, wants each legislator to receive as the daily expense allowance while in session or in special session. His legislation, HB 1212, would increase the allowance to $175 per day in session from the present $110. For a 38-day session such as this year, his increase would be an extra $2,470 for a total of $6,650.

When was legislative ‘per diem’ last increased? Then-Rep. Kenneth McNenny, R-Sturgis, sponsored the change in 2000, raising it from $95. That increase took effect Jan. 1, 2001.

But no pay raise? Novstrup’s bill doesn’t touch the $6,000 annual salary, which has been in place since Jan. 1, 1999. The salary was last increased during the 1998 session to take effect the following year. Then-Rep. Gary Sokolow, D-Vermillion, sponsored the bill.

How much was the salary previously? Prior to 1999, the salary was $4,267 for a 40-day session and $3,733 for a 35-day session. With the Novstrup increase, legislators would receive more in expense allowance than in salary. Sokolow, by the way, served only one term, 1997-98. During the ’98 session the lawyer was 3-for-3 in getting his bills passed into law.

Who are the co-sponsors on the Novstrup bill? The House co-sponsors are all Republicans. They are Kristin Conzet of Rapid City, Justin Cronin of Gettysburg, House Speaker Brian Gosch of Rapid City, majority leader David Lust of Rapid City and Roger Solum of Watertown. The lead Senate sponsor, if the bill gets there, is Republican Larry Rhoden of Union Center. The other Senate co-sponsors are Democratic leader Jason Frerichs of Wilmot and Republicans Ryan Maher of Isabel, Deb Peters of Hartford, Tim Rave of Baltic and Larry Tidemann of Brookings.

Why isn’t his father among the co-sponsors? “I almost never sign his bills, and vice versa,” Sen. Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, said. The bill is assigned to the House State Affairs Committee, which Lust chairs. A hearing date hasn’t been announced yet. Novstrup is serving his fourth consecutive term in the House and because of term limits can’t seek re-election to his current seat in 2014.

Tuesday was the final day for committees to introduce legislation. Monday was the deadline for individual legislators. What is the final count? Assuming neither the House nor the Senate decides to suspend the rules, there are 242 Senate bills and 250 House bills for a total of 492. In 2012, the Senate had 197 bills and the House 274 for a total of 471.

Do legislators like the idea of moving the agriculture development sub-fund from the Governor’s Office of Economic Development to the state Department of Agriculture? The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee certainly seemed to favor moving the loans and grants program. The committee voted 13-0 Tuesday to recommend HB 1049’s passage and put it on the House consent calendar, meaning it won’t receive debate unless a House member requests it. “I think it’s a very wise move,” Rep. Gary Cammack, R-Union Center, said.

How did Sen. Stan Adelstein fare in his attempt to increase bonding requirements for gold and uranium mines? The Senate Commerce and Energy Committee voted 6-0 to kill SB 141 Tuesday. Adelstein, R-Rapid City, said there are instances where mining bonds weren’t adequate and his goal is to keep inexperienced and small operators from taking on more than they can financially handle. The committee members decided to continue to let bond amounts be determined by the state Board of Minerals and Environment.

What were the potential impacts? Lobbyists for Wharf Resources, the only large-scale gold mine still operating, said the company would need to more than double its existing operations bond, from $35 million to more than $70 million, and approximately triple its chemicals bond to $1.7 million from $560,000. State Environment Secretary Steve Pirner didn’t support or oppose Adelstein’s bill but said in response to committee questioning he expects the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would set the bond for the Powertech uranium development if it proceeds.

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.